Open Forum in the United States: Not Like Britain

Politics in the United States has always seemed to be a behind-closed-doors operation, as the government has been involved with scandal after scandal for many years now, whether it be with Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon. Such a private world is not typically seen in other parts of the world, as democracy is supposed to be America's things, but other nations have been utilizing the system much better.

In a 2003 open forum type of interview with Jeremy Paxman and British citizens, Tony Blair gave honest responses and had the courage to face his nation in a way that was not benefiting him. This type of courageous behavior would not be found in America, as the fear of saying something that might not benefit a campaign or would upset the general public is something that keeps politicians from speaking frankly. 

Independent media outlets seem to be the only option in America for people to speak openly on topics that are not typically touched. These journalists have the ability to speak out against the government and truly question what is going on in this country. They are the ones that push the envelope and question everything. 

In terms of the future, it is safe to say that this type of open forum discussion with politicians will never happen in the United States, as fear of the public's response is overwhelming. I would laud Blair for coming out and speaking candidly to the public without prepared questions to help him, and I would hope that Britain received his courageousness well.

Unfortunately, the scrutiny involved with politics in the United States is too overwhelming for any political figurehead to step out and go against what is traditionally done to boost their reputation. 

Does Comedy Speak Wide Volumes?

The popular shows brining light to all things political with hosts Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have become a way to inform citizens on what's going on while adding an element of entertainment to the content. With Colbert and Stewart making their way off of comedy central, one question it raises is whether or not this type of television programming is worthy of being considered viable news?

While it is true that these shows do not break any news, they provide a crucial commentary on what's going on with the world. They have the courage to truly question the status quo of the big name television networks. The fact that they provide a comedic element makes it easier to watch, but I also think that what they are saying should be viewed as having high merit because their take on the world is often a fresh take and truthful.

Now shifting to other names with similar content, John Oliver recently had a rant on net neutrality that essentially put the controversial topic in simplest form for viewers. His rant made it seem like the government was not making the simple choice on the matter, which is often the way that Colbert and Stewart produced their content. By being a realist in his commentary, Oliver provides a unique perspective on the matter.

Hopefully, this evolution of comedy and politics will continue to evolve as it makes often dull content very entertaining for the traditional viewer.

Living in the Smear World

American Journalism has evolved quite a bit since Publick Occurrences was published back in 1690. That paper was published under extremely dangerous circumstances, and it was put to an end after just one issue, because of influence from a higher power. All of the journalism in that paper was courageous, because the writers and editors were working under uncertain circumstances.

Fast forward 325 years and the hard-hitting television news broadcasts of TMZ and E! News are driving the American media. What happened? Reporting on matters important to national security has now turned into reporting on who is dating who in Hollywood. It is outrageous that viewers in today's modern society are more interested in soft news that will not make an impact on anything significant.

Especially interesting stories stem from gossip and rumors, which is seen in a Drudge Report article on a potential Bill Clinton child. While reading this article, consumers will notice that no hard journalism is seen in the page, only quotes from the rumored mother of the child, which just continue the rumors. At no point in the article is it mentioned that this is probably just a scheme to try and get some money from the woman. The idea of this scandal is more important to run with then reporting on a realistic basis.

It can be admitted that I am not a hypocrite on this matter, as pieces like this interest as well, which just shows how poor the journalism has been during my maturation process. Growing up seeing stories involving celebrity gossip and other soft journalism has destroyed this generation's sense of quality journalism, which is an irreversible characteristic.

As long as the money is there with these types of stories, they will be around for a long time. Fear for the upcoming generation is quite high as intellectual journalism continues to be removed from the mainstream media.

Should I Post This?

Once in a while, whether a journalist is covering a political campaign, local sports or what have you, the individual they are interviewing will say something that cites a grand reaction. In one of the more well-known instances of this, Bill Clinton says some particularly scathing comments on a reporter. Those comments were recorded by another reporter, Mayhill Fowler, and were put to press.

Typically, it is fine for this to go to press, but the issue brought up was that Clinton said these things at a private function and it can be said that Clinton was not aware that he was talking to a journalist, especially one that wrote for such a powerful media outlet like the Huffington Post. It is a matter of journalistic ethics, and Fowler was put into question as to whether she handled the situation using proper ethics and if she should have posted the intense interview.

In my mind, there are some parts to the story that lead me to believe that she did not do everything properly in terms of attaining that information. She was in a scrum with many other people, so it is understandable that she did not state her name and where she was from, but I would not have asked such questions to incite a reaction like the one she got from Clinton. If you are trying to get a specific angle that can incite such hostility, I would let the person know who I was, so they do not do anything that they would regret, just as a matter of courtesy.

I have covered a college hockey game before for USCHO.com where a coach said something critical of the officiating from the game during a post-game interview. Under the rules of the conference for which the team competes, criticism of officials can result in punishment, whether by fine or suspension. I was the only member of the media interviewing this coach, so I was presented with a tough dilemma: Do I go to print with this criticism, or do I write about something else? The coach would know who I was and he would know that I was the only one with that audio, so it would be difficult to speak with this coach again if he got fined or suspended.

I decided to keep the audio to myself and not risk getting a bad reputation with that coach. I know this example does not fall hand-in-hand with the dilemma presented to Fowler, but I think it is fair to say that she will not get any type of inside scoop with Clinton.

Trying to be on the Team from the Sidelines

In the sporting world, fans and media members alike tend to get too into the team that they are following and act in a manner that is consistent with a member of the actual team. Getting worked up to the point that biases are created is a terrible form of reporting if you are indeed a member of the media. Not only in sports is this type of behavior exhibited, as shown in an article written by Jeff Cohen on reporting from CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin that shows a bias exhibited towards the United States government.

When discussing tactics that the American government should look to implement, Sorkin uses the phrase "we" which would say that he is a member of the U.S. government and he is just as important in the decision making process as the actual government. As noted by Cohen in his piece, "last time I checked, Sorkin was working for the Times and CNBC, not the CIA or FBI," said Cohen. It is not professional to seemingly get so enamored with a certain organization that your ability to report unbiased content is affected.

Through Sorkin's inappropriate language, it is clear that he is openly trying to associate himself with the U.S. government, which is an example of poor reporting that can be compared to the sporting world. An example of correcting this unprofessional behavior of cheering for an unaffiliated entity is actually found through some of my own personal experience.

When I was a senior in high school, I shadowed a local sports writer. One of the events that we covered on multiple occasions was the local minor league hockey team, which is my favorite hockey team and I have been a fan since boyhood. During a game, the team scored and I openly cheered from my press box location. I was told that was unprofessional behavior and I can't do that again. I was shamed to the point that I have never cheered for something from a press box location ever again, which has now included three years of covering the Cornell men's hockey team. If someone were to ask me about the Cornell team, I would say I am not a fan, but I hope they are successful. At no point would I say the pronoun "we." Hopefully, Sorkin can learn to follow that type of behavior as well in order to increase his credibility.

YouTube Stardom and Separating True Journalism from Smut

In the 21st century, there are many ways to achieve stardom, including some forms of fame that would not even be considered as near back as ten years ago.

YouTube has developed into an outlet that can create extreme fame, and now even fortune, due to the online application's ability to reach millions upon millions of viewers. Countless examples of personalities that strive on the outlet are all over the world, but fame from YouTube can often be found through silly things.

Michael Buckley, who hosts the YouTube show "What the Buck?" has developed a vast following based off of his abrasive and loud personality. An article by The New York Times' Brian Stelter shows just how Buckley made a fortune from working in his home and producing a limited number of videos.

While it is impressive that Buckley no longer needs to maintain a job outside of his videos, it also shows what a good portion of the world is looking for in terms of the content that they are consuming. Buckley's videos do not have any hard-hitting journalistic value and the type of content that he produces can be closely related to that of Perez Hilton, which is not typically considered a compliment.

So much of what grabs the attention of consumers in today's world is that loud and open personality, which is what Buckley has. He is not necessarily making a difference with what he says, but viewers keep on coming back to him because of his personality.

Popularity for this type of content is not a positive sign for the media landscape of America. A focus on more feature type stories and real journalism needs to be established in order to eliminate the paparazzi culture of spreading rumors and not providing factual information that is relevant to the lives of America's citizens.

Who is a Journalist in 2015?

The definition of who a journalist is has no concrete explanation in my mind. Anyone in the world that has internet access can report news in today's world, which is a controversial media landscape in my mind. It is up to the consumers of news to trust certain media outlets that follow the upstanding ethics of journalism. In my mind, I would define a journalist in 2015 based off of their intentions.

I personally maintain a separate blog from this for my own interest, and produce content for a college hockey website and participate heavily in student media, but does that make me a journalist. I would like to think it does, because of the intentions in which I produce my content. I am not creating information for rumors, gossip or just senseless bits of content that do not create any relevant news. With the advances in blogging and other online sites, the question of whether or not those writers are considered journalists is heating up right now, and I would like to think that those bloggers with newsworthy intentions should indeed be considered journalists.

A recent article by The Oregonian gives an example of a blogger that had a hard time fighting for his right to be called a journalist. The blogger in question, Mark Bunster, was asked to leave a political hearing, because he was not considered a member of the news media, even though he produces content related to the political world in Oregon.

I believe that Mr. Bunster should absolutely be considered a member of the news media, because he is creating content that is considered newsworthy to the general public. It is absurd to think that just because his content is not being produced in print, he has been denied similar rights in the media to those outlets that produce content that can be physically held. Today's world and the future is all about digital content, and there needs to be more opportunities for those digital producers to create content that can often be less restricted by corporate interests.

I honestly think that this "digital media discrimination" will not last, because content is so digital in today's world and it is progressing down a similar road. Print is dying, and there needs to be more acceptance of digital producers of similar content.